Edwin Jackson Megathread...

[Soxbadger]

Id rather have a guy who is dominant at anything.

 

So many Sox 1st round picks havent even been mediocre at the MLB level.

 

I dont see how you can complain about picking a guy with legitimate stuff and hoping he can be a starter, but worse case scenario is above average reliever. That would seem to me to be a pretty smart pick.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Okay but if you're 80% sure he's a dominant starter with a 20% shot that he's a dominant reliever, how can you possibly say it's a bad pick? I mean, retrospectively, if he ends up in the 'pen permanently, yeah, it ended up being somewhat of a waste but it doesn't make the decision poor.

 

He's gonna get every opportunity to start unless we end up with a Papelbon situation.

 

Again, I used the wrong word. If we're the Red Sox, I don't care if he turns out to be a reliever. But we're not the Red Sox. Look at our pitching in the system after Sale. Pathetic is being too kind. I don't know how many more times we have to come up short for people to realize how critical drafting/developing is. If you look around the league, you'll see that they're are virtually no current closers who were first round picks. The best closer in the game (and when I say that I mean this year only) was Brian Wilson. You know what round he went in? 12th! You've got teams finding closers through international signings, waiver wire, rule 5 and late round picks. You don't burn first round picks on guys who eventually become closers.

[Soxbadger]

But not every first round pick even makes the majors.

 

The Sox have had first round picks that had less impact than Sale already has.

[greg775]

Not to flame, but we have Edwin Jackson now. We don't have the guy we traded for him.

So no sense looking back. It's time to hope Edwin is a dominant pitcher. He showed flashes this year.

[Jerksticks]

Not to flame, but we have Edwin Jackson now. We don't have the guy we traded for him.

So no sense looking back. It's time to hope Edwin is a dominant pitcher. He showed flashes this year.

 

Bingo. He's our boy now. Let's look forward to him being one of our best, if not the best.

[Milkman delivers]

But not every first round pick even makes the majors.

 

The Sox have had first round picks that had less impact than Sale already has.

 

That's not a very good argument, as the Sox drafted guys with less than first-round talent for a long time in the first round.

[bigruss]

No youre not reading correctly. You have parsed out very important points:

 

 

 

 

 

Hudson was unproven, you had no idea what Hudson would bring for the rest of the season. Jackson was far more proven, furthermore Jackson had far more talent.

 

Some times you have to trade a young unproven cheap talent for an expensive more proven more talented player.

 

You are acing like Hudson has more talent than Jackson. Jackson is the more talented player, Jackson is the more proven player. Generally more talent + more proven = more expensive.

 

The only thing Hudson had going for him was being cheap, and Im sorry but keeping Hudson just because he was cheap is not a good plan if you are trying to win this year. You never know what is going to happen in the future, so you try and give your team the best shot when they have one.

Proven in what? Inconsistency? His monthly splits are mind boggling. Jackson may be more talented, but he has shown that he pretty much ends up being a 4th starter with potential to be better but can't do it for a full season. Hudson is a 4/5 right now with potential of a solid 3, that's not to far off and when you factor in what you could do this offseason with $8.5MM then suddenly Hudson looks alot sexier than you paint him.

[Soxbadger]

You can replace Sox with any team in baseball.

 

Id much prefer the White Sox had Matt Bush to Chris Sale. In baseball very few first round picks are sure things, many dont make it at all.

 

(Edit)

 

Jackson was proven in the fact that he had had thrown over 600 innings and had an era + of 100 and 120 the prior 2 seasons. Furthermore Jackson's stuff has never been questioned.

 

Hudson had thrown 33 innings, including his brilliant 3 game stretch with the Sox this year where he went 1-1 with a 6.32 era, averaging 5 innings in 3 starts.

 

You want to win, you take risks. If Hudson had gone out and pitched like he did in Arizona, he wouldnt have been traded. The Sox gave him a shot, he didnt produce. The Sox wanted to win last year, they thought that 5 games may be the difference. They felt Jackson gave them a better chance to win games than Hudson did.

 

You can talk about how cheap Hudson is, but payroll saving in 2011 doesnt win you games in 2010. The Sox didnt make the playoffs, but that was their goal and mindset. Its basically comparing apples and oranges, because keeping Hudson would have been the equivalent of conceding defeat in 2010 for the chance of more payroll flexibility in 2011. If the Sox make the playoffs and beyond, they would have had plenty of money for Jackson +.

 

Id rather go big then just sit around and hope for miracles.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Soxbadger

[bigruss]

JR said on The Club that this deal was "a no-brainer". Those are powerful words and your points seem to back up Jerry's line of thinking; mine as well.

 

I'm so much happier having Jackson for 2011 than Hudson. He's got ace-stuff; he's probably our best pitcher, and I always thought Hudson would have at least a year of growing pains in our park, and in the AL.

 

Do you people that hate the trade think Hudson would have put up those AZ numbers here? Color me curious. It's too bad for you guys that Peavy didn't get hurt earlier so we could have evaluated Huddy a bit more.

Taking baseball decisions from JR is such a horrible, horrible idea. Of course he will back his GM and staff up, and it should be pretty obvious that although JR is involved in baseball, he is no scout and shouldn't be treated as one. His power is in his financial decision making.

 

Just because you have ace-stuff doesn't make you a better pitcher, Jackson is one of the most inconsistent pitchers out there.

 

Hudson has shown in the minors and now with the DBacks that he is good, not great (he won't pitch this well over a full season), but he has swing and miss stuff, and won't walk a ton of batters like in his first 3 games this year with us. He has good command and will be a solid #3 for years to come, all for dirt cheap.

 

Color me curious how're going to recover from this $8.5MM hit and how're going to fill the holes we have not only this season, but season's forward. Isn't the goal for the team to not only put the best team out on the field this year, but consistently? Losing pitchers like Hudson for guys like Jackson, all contracts considered, is what will prevent that unless our farm system goes on steroids.

[Soxbadger]

Color me curious how're going to recover from this $8.5MM hit and how're going to fill the holes we have not only this season, but season's forward. Isn't the goal for the team to not only put the best team out on the field this year, but consistently? Losing pitchers like Hudson for guys like Jackson, all contracts considered, is what will prevent that unless our farm system goes on steroids.

 

Its not my job. I dont work for the White Sox, so I dont know how they are going to work next season. I assume they have a plan and that they will do their best to put a winning team on the field.

 

JR has spent more money on the Sox than any other owner has. If he feels the Sox had the money to take on Jackson, then Im not going to question him. I think Jackson is the better pitcher, so if JR has the money, Im going to take the better player.

[Balta1701]

JR has spent more money on the Sox than any other owner has.

This statement really means nothing to me since salaries have gone up at a rate much higher than inflation. The only owners you can't say that about in MLB have owned their teams for only a couple years. It'll take the next owner probably less than 5 years to be able to say the same thing.

[Soxbadger]

The implication was that JR has spent more comparatively.

 

Under JR the Sox have been in the top 10 of payroll and I believe even the top 5.

 

Im pretty sure that no other owner has had them that high.

[Balta1701]

The implication was that JR has spent more comparatively.

 

Under JR the Sox have been in the top 10 of payroll and I believe even the top 5.

 

Im pretty sure that no other owner has had them that high.

But JR has been the owner basically through the entire free agency era. Prior to that, payroll and performance really weren't connected and there was no way that spending more on payroll would translate to an improved team.

[southsider2k5]

But JR has been the owner basically through the entire free agency era. Prior to that, payroll and performance really weren't connected and there was no way that spending more on payroll would translate to an improved team.

 

Until Curt Flood, there was no reason to pay a player higher, because no one else could. The end of the reserve clause changed all of that. Anyone else think that might have been the single worst thing to happen to the game of baseball? There are now probably 10 places that know they will never win a World Series.

[Soxbadger]

You can only work with the evidence given. Im fully aware of when baseball went to free agency and I understand how baseball worked prior to Curt Flood. The bottom line is that JR has spent more than roughly 2/3's of the owners in baseball for the last few seasons. The owner prior to JR consistently spent in the lower third.

 

Since 2005 JR has spent to try and keep the Sox competitive. Im not sure why you are so confident that a new owner would outspend JR.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just to clarify something here, because of the way its being stated... Jerry Reinsdorf is not the owner of the Sox. He's AN owner, and not even the largest one at that. He's a stakeholder, who also happens to have taken on the role of spokesman for said ownership.

 

[Soxbadger]

Yes JR is part of a conglomerate. But he is the spokesman and its easier to type JR instead of all of the individual owners.

[witesoxfan]

Until Curt Flood, there was no reason to pay a player higher, because no one else could. The end of the reserve clause changed all of that. Anyone else think that might have been the single worst thing to happen to the game of baseball? There are now probably 10 places that know they will never win a World Series.

 

I'm going to go ahead and call BS on that one. The Rays had one of the lowest payrolls in baseball in 2008 and made it to the World Series after being a laughingstock for 10 years, the Angels had a middle of the road payroll in 2002 and won it all after years of mediocrity, and the Marlins have won it twice. Yes, you have to spend a LITTLE bit of money, but if an owner can't afford to spend even $60-70 million on his team during a period when the team is trying to be competitive, then they shouldn't be in an ownership position in the first place.

 

[kitekrazy]

Plus Coop has probably forgotten more about pitching than any of us could ever know, and HE wanted Jackson. In Coop I trust.

 

He gets a free pass way too often. His group under achieved. Danks has meltdowns vs. the Twins. Floyd? Maybe a million dollar arm but not a mind to match it. What about the pen? Coops magic is probably short term. He gets too much praise.

 

[kitekrazy]

So let's ignore the fact that Aardsma has a 2.90 ERA, 9.6 K/9 and 144 era+ the last two years? He's certainly not elite. But considering he's made just over 3 million the last two years, I'd say the Mariners have gotten pretty good value. How about Nick Masset? All he's done the last two years is post a 2.89 ERA, 9.1 K/9 and an ERA+ of 142. And I'm shocked you of all people haven't mentioned the complete bust that has been Tony Pena. Don Cooper is getting pretty overrated. He's good but the hype is ridiculous. We basically got a year and a half of dominant pitching from Contreras. A failed reliever that's turned elite (give him big props there). And Gavin Floyd. Not saying that's nothing. But he's not the messiah of pitching coaches, either.

 

Ouch. Good call on Aardsma. Steve Stone thought that was a great prospect.

 

[kitekrazy]

Closers are a dime a dozen these days.

 

Except for a Southside team in the month of August. It will be interesting to see what kind of money Jenks will get from another team.

 

[southsider2k5]

Ouch. Good call on Aardsma. Steve Stone thought that was a great prospect.

 

More like Javy Aardsma. He had chances in three cities to be in pennant races, and he was terrible. Dude goes out to Seattle, where on top of being in one of the biggest parks in baseball, he also played on some awful teams, he pitched well.

[Disco72]

I'm going to go ahead and call BS on that one. The Rays had one of the lowest payrolls in baseball in 2008 and made it to the World Series after being a laughingstock for 10 years, the Angels had a middle of the road payroll in 2002 and won it all after years of mediocrity, and the Marlins have won it twice. Yes, you have to spend a LITTLE bit of money, but if an owner can't afford to spend even $60-70 million on his team during a period when the team is trying to be competitive, then they shouldn't be in an ownership position in the first place.

 

I think it would be more accurate to say that you can become a winning team with a lower payroll, but you need a higher payroll to keep winning.

[Balta1701]

I think it would be more accurate to say that you can become a winning team with a lower payroll, but you need a higher payroll to keep winning.

Depends on how long you're talking about.

 

The Rays have been at least a winning team for 3 years with fairly low payroll, and there's plenty of reason to think they have more on the way. They lose Crawford this year but have Desmond Jennings lined up next. They still have more pitchers than they know what to do with.

[Disco72]

Depends on how long you're talking about.

 

The Rays have been at least a winning team for 3 years with fairly low payroll, and there's plenty of reason to think they have more on the way. They lose Crawford this year but have Desmond Jennings lined up next. They still have more pitchers than they know what to do with.

 

I agree on TB but think they are more likely the exception that proves the rule. They built 'cheaply' by losing and developing draft picks, and they've been able to stay with a lower payroll by continuing to develop drafted talent. It will be curious to see how long that continues, especially because of their inability to increase payroll due to attendance issues.